Russ Feingold to Help Republicans Move on To Stage 2: Anger

[albed]

Pretending the military is made up of "kids" is another glaring example of leftist ethics.

Or senility.

[RDixon]

Since I've failed to herd the discussion back towards the topic...
I'l jump head long into the tangent.

BUSH'S GUT.

Bush's gut told him Saddam had massive stockpiles of wmds. - He didn't.
Bush's gut told him Saddam was persuing nukes. - He wasn't.
Bush's gut told him Saddam was responsible for 9/11. - He wasn't.
Bush's gut told him that the generals who said it would take 400 to 500k troops to win in a war with Iraq were wrong and he fired them. - They weren't wrong.
Bush's gut told him that the Iraqi people wanted to be "liberated". - They didn't.
Bush's gut told him that he is the "decider". - He isn't.
Bush's gut told him he is above the law, any law. - He isn't.

Name one thing Bush's gut has been right about.

America does not need a president who continues to trust his gut feelings and act on them when time and again they prove to be wrong.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by albed

Why don't you try to be an unbigoted whiner and complain about how I drag out drug and alcohol abuse to bash people...

Originally Posted by albed

...or their religious beliefs...

Originally Posted by albed

...or their obvious low intelligence?

Wow skippy, how does it feel to be such a slimy paragon of hypocrisy?

I dunno, but I can tell you it just looks incredible.

[albed]

???-Ramona's latest bitch slapping must have knocked something loose in his head.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Yeah. Pretty much answers my question.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by RDixon

Since I've failed to herd the discussion back towards the topic...
I'l jump head long into the tangent.

BUSH'S GUT.

Bush's gut told him Saddam had massive stockpiles of wmds. - He didn't.

Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. The Iranians wanted revenge on Saddam because of the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980, and the eight year war that followed.

Bush's gut told him Saddam was persuing nukes. - He wasn't.

See above, but Let’s say the USA never did invade Iraq and Saddam was still in power, it is no secret Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Do you really think he wouldn’t be?

Bush's gut told him Saddam was responsible for 9/11. - He wasn't.

Al Qaeda was a growing movement before 2003, and before 2001. But after the Iraq invasion, and especially the Sunni Arab terrorism, al Qaeda fell in popularity throughout the Moslem world. Arab countries cracked down on al Qaeda operations more than ever before. Without the Iraq invasion, al Qaeda would still have safe havens all over the Arab world.

Bush's gut told him that the generals who said it would take 400 to 500k troops to win in a war with Iraq were wrong and he fired them. - They weren't wrong.

Link?

Bush's gut told him that the Iraqi people wanted to be "liberated". - They didn't.

Change “They” to the murderers, rapist, tyrants, terrorist then your are right. They liked Iraq the way it was. You say Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam. Most Iraqis disagree. Check election results and opinion polls. Reporters tend to ask Iraqi Sunni Arabs this question, but they were the only ones who benefited from Saddams rule. The minority not the majority.

Bush's gut told him that he is the "decider". - He isn't.
Bush's gut told him he is above the law, any law. - He isn't.

example?

[RDixon]

President Bush: “The main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t.”

You can see this at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html

The Iraq Survey Group, headed by General Dayton, set up by the intelligence department within the Pentagon, whose final report says, “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.” The report also mentions that there is no proof that WMDs were sent to Syria. You can Google the report.

Even General Colin Powell has admitted that his presentation to the UN to justify the war turned out to be totally false. He now says it was the biggest mistake of his career.

Then, of course, there are the reports of the UN weapons inspectors who told us before the war that Iraq had no WMDs.

I challenge you to provide credible documentation that disputes the President, the ISG, the UN and General Powell’s admissions that Iraq did not have WMDs.

If you succede I will give consideration to the rest of your assertations and discredit them too...

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

hehe. i read some of your latest stuff mazer and burst out laughing. "nothing more." good one lol, but re iraq you can't back up nor provide evidence for.

it's pure fantasy. well, delusion actually.

i don't hold it against you. we all have ours. no one takes yours seriously (except the christian right and even they are backing away) and most importantly you're not sending kids off to die, but it is increasingly disconnected from reality.

- js.

Either I'm deluded or the majority of Americans are. We won't know which for quite some time.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by Mazer

A republic is a small group of people that governs the rest of the population with the mandate of that population. We have democratic elections but that does not make us a democracy, and because we are not a democracy our government should not flip flop in response to public opinion polls. A republic that pretends to be a democracy is having a crisis of identity and needs to get its act together. It needs representatives who stick to the promises that got them elected in the first place.

Lincoln was a Republican, by the way. He would not have approved of our leaders consulting opinion polls after they were elected.

Come again?

We have democratic elections but that does not make us a democracy, and because we are not a democracy our government should not flip flop in response to public opinion polls.

You are not a democracy? Then how come say that the USA did bring a democracy to Iraq? Quite an oximoron yes?

So if the United States of America is not a democracy, what is it then, totalitarian, fascist?

So what you say is that the people have the right to vote but once their vote casted, they have to shut the fuck up?

I used Lincoln as an example for his words are worth shit to the actual republican party that is in office today, afterall, didn't Bush referred to the constitution as only a god damned piece of paper?

Quite a slap in the face of the achivement of Lincoln eh? For the people by the people. I am sure he didn't mean all your civil liberties taken away for a little security... Today's republicans are very far from what Lincoln Idealogy was when he founded this party, he seem more like a democrat with his values and ideas than a turn of this century republican. The only true republican in my views today is Ron Paul.

[Sinner]

OH yes, one of my favorite subjects….

You are not a democracy? Then how come say that the USA did bring a democracy to Iraq? Quite an oximoron yes?

No it is not a oxymoron and the USA is not a Democracy or Mob Rule as it is defined, no country is a democracy and only one country in the history of the world was and it failed. I won’t get into the whole Socrates thing because you will not understand it.

Try here - http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...ead.php?t=3410

So if the United States of America is not a democracy, what is it then, totalitarian, fascist?

He told you, try to read a little better. A Republic. The USA is a Republic. You know the whole Roman Empire and the founding fathers taking what worked and leaving what did not from the Romans.

“A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).”

Read the link above.

So what you say is that the people have the right to vote but once their vote casted, they have to shut the fuck up?

You did post in that Protest in Washington D.C. thread no? who is shutting up?

I used Lincoln as an example for his words are worth shit to the actual republican party that is in office today, afterall, didn't Bush referred to the constitution as only a god damned piece of paper?

Link please? Where did Bush say that? More BS is my guess.

Quite a slap in the face of the achivement of Lincoln eh? For the people by the people. I am sure he didn't mean all your civil liberties taken away for a little security... Today's republicans are very far from what Lincoln Idealogy was when he founded this party, he seem more like a democrat with his values and ideas than a turn of this century republican. The only true republican in my views today is Ron Paul.

LOL!!!!!!!! So he is a true Republican because he hates Bush!…LOL!!!

I am no expert on Lincoln but I believe the Republican party was created in 1854 and Lincoln joined the party in 1856. So the Republican’s have taken ALL civil liberties away? Really….when did that happen? I missed that, I will have to google it later to find out. Lincoln is no Democrat, if he was slavery would have continued until who knows when.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

So what you say is that the people have the right to vote but once their vote casted, they have to shut the fuck up?

Sinner pretty much summed it up for me, but I can field an answer to this question. We have the right in America to say pretty much whatever we want to, as per the 1st Amendment. Our lawmakers, by the grace of being elected democratically, have the right to ignore whatever we say if they so choose. It's my opinion that they should avoid the inherent bias of our opinions and look after our needs instead. And because we elect them based on the promises they make prior to election day I think they should stick to their promises even if public opinion varies. In this particular instance I think Bush should do what he was reelected to do: win the war in Iraq. And I think the Democrats should do what they were given a majority in Congress to do: keep Bush focused on successfully and safely bringing the troops home in a timely manner.

I made a prediction a while back that phased troop withdrawals would begin by the end of this year. If the Democrats have their way the pullout will be much shorter in duration than I predicted, but as long as we don't leave Iraq in utter chaos I won't mind too much.

Anyway, there you have it. In a republic the representatives, not the people, get to make the important, time-sensitive decisions, and the closer they stick to their promises, the more conviction they have, and the less attention they pay to the fickle opinions of the day, the better off we all are.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

nah, this twerp doesn't have guts, and we know he doesn't have brains.

guts. christ that's a laugh.

- js.

It's all relative Jack.

Now... who will be the next on the Hot Seat?

I sure hope that it is not that power hungry bitch hilery.

heshe

[RDixon]

Iraq Deployment Act of 2007

Now, we will see just where the politicians stand on this.

[albed]

Hold your breath. Please.

[vernarial]

So if the United States of America is not a democracy, what is it then, totalitarian, fascist?

More like a Plutocracy. This would make a good discussion.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

I think Bush will go down in history as "President Guts".

And you think that is a good thing?
Thousands of men lose their life's.
Thousands of children without their fathers.
All this to prove Bush has guts?
Not a father yourself then?

The whole thing in Iraq has gone wrong.
The real gutsy thing would be to admit this.
Then get to work,to see about getting out of there.
Not more of the same.
At home here,Blair has been mostly quite a good prime Minister.
But his support of this thing in Iraq has ruined his creditability.Which I think is a shame.

[RDixon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ge...p_b_40542.html

Let's play hardball.

[albed]

It's still not dawning on the clueless crowd: there's not going to be a quick end to the troop deployments any more than there'll be an end to congress's corruption or its poor work ethic.



The seductive whispers in the ear have served their purpose but now the one-nighter is over and it's time to pull up your panties and sob your way home.

[Mazer]

When your party holds a majority by the narrowest of margins, partisanship gets you nowhere.